• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Patent office cancels Redskins trademarks

Unitedwestand13 said:
What about the 5 Native Americans who brought the original suit? Should they have just remained silent?
Click to expand...

Not at all. Just ignored on the basis of merit, but followed by a flick of a $10 chip, and a pull on the handle of the slot machine, in recognition of all the Indians have done for the US.
 
tres borrachos said:
There is a beer available called "Easy Blonde". As a blonde, it offends me. I think I'll call the patent office and tell them that my feelings are hurt.
Click to expand...

Fat Bastard wine! The list is probably endless. Ridiculous.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
What about the 5 Native Americans who brought the original suit? Should they have just remained silent?
Click to expand...

That's a good point.

No. They shouldn't have. However, the US Patent Office made a major mistake here. The Native Americans could have, and should have, gone to court to get an injunction to remove the name; but they didn't, they went to the Patent Office to play the political card rather than the legal card. This was purely political interference and manipulation of a government agency and federal law to harm the profitability of a private company simply for the purposes of advancing political correctness. This may actually make it to the SCOTUS before its over, and for the life of me, I can't even see how any of the liberal justices can justify this action as Constitutional.
 
MaggieD said:
Fat Bastard wine! The list is probably endless. Ridiculous.
Click to expand...

If I was fat and the product of a single mother, I'd be pissed at that.

;)

This has opened a can of worms that I think - hope - the government will regret.
 
If you want to win the battle over a team name considered offensive, this is not the way to do it.
 
MaggieD said:
Do you really think "the government" cares if they win or lose? They work with unlimited funds. They don't give a damn. They'll spend the team broke. And spend US broke in the process. And if the team wins punitive damages? We'll lose again. This is jack-boot control of private enterprise. It is scary.
Click to expand...

Hear, hear... words of wisdom, people. Read and absorb.
 
Not a fan of this idea. I have however long thought that the name is offensive. I am laughing that it happened to that little prick Daniel Snyder.
 
MaggieD said:
Do you really think "the government" cares if they win or lose? They work with unlimited funds. They don't give a damn. They'll spend the team broke. And spend US broke in the process. And if the team wins punitive damages? We'll lose again. This is jack-boot control of private enterprise. It is scary.
Click to expand...
Very astute observation!;)

Spending a few million dollars of taxpayer money on legal fees and then having to cough up a few tens of million in damages probably doesn't even get discussed as a potential negative when they weigh the pros and cons of a decision like this. They get to intimidate and then they get to unleash the propaganda machine while all of this is playing out in court. Very good insight to how this administration does it's day to day business.
 
What about Redman chewing tobacco and Redman the rapper? Do they lose their trademarks too?
 
I remember watching an episode of Casper as a child. The bully ghosts were scaring people, and then along came an Indian (or maybe it was an Indian statue). The presence of an Indian terrified the ghosts into retreat. The Indian was the scarier monster.

Not really relevant to this conversation, just a personal experience with Native American stereotypes.
 
Beaudreaux said:
That's a good point.

No. They shouldn't have. However, the US Patent Office made a major mistake here. The Native Americans could have, and should have, gone to court to get an injunction to remove the name; but they didn't, they went to the Patent Office to play the political card rather than the legal card. This was purely political interference and manipulation of a government agency and federal law to harm the profitability of a private company simply for the purposes of advancing political correctness. This may actually make it to the SCOTUS before its over, and for the life of me, I can't even see how any of the liberal justices can justify this action as Constitutional.
Click to expand...

Maybe Snyder should have considered changing the name if he wanted to avoid financial heartache.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Maybe Snyder should have considered changing the name if he wanted to avoid financial heartache.
Click to expand...
Kind of like how Chick Fil-A should reconsider their stance on gay marriage if they want to do business in Chicago?
 
I'm sure Snyder will win this. My guess is that there is some stipulation that the Patent office can't renew the trademark as long as there is a pending lawsuit.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
What about the 5 Native Americans who brought the original suit? Should they have just remained silent?
Click to expand...

Yea they should. If they have time and energy to put into this. Why not put that time and energy into helping their people in a meaningful way.
Lets just say that all indian mascot names are eradicated.
Does that make their lives better? Does that pull many out of alcoholism, depression, poverty?
 
Beaudreaux said:
I feel that the US government just got itself a HUGE civil lawsuit from the owners of the Washington Redskins. I'm not a patent attorney, but I feel sure that 'not hurting someone's feelings' aren't mentioned in the requirements for a trademark.
Click to expand...

In reality all they would need to show is a group which is disparaged over it and I'm sure they can line up people for that even if it is a small few. They would lose a lawsuit like this, especially with the government backing up the Patent Office.

It's an abuse of government power IMO in this case.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Maybe Snyder should have considered changing the name if he wanted to avoid financial heartache.
Click to expand...

Good point; however, I seriously doubt this was about money, and about liberty and the ability to be free from interference in commerce.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom